Whether it be the US, Russia, China, or any other major military force, all employ space capabilities to some extent.

As a result of this dependence, some militaries are developing the tools to deny their adversaries the use and benefit of space systems. These capabilities come in several different categories, but they all share one common feature: they are threats to space systems. This is not unexpected.

Much the same as aircraft and anti-aircraft weapons, it was only a matter of time before military actors began developing the means to neutralise advantages gained from space.

Yet while this technology has previously been limited to a few players, new innovations in asymmetric warfare are quickly changing the dynamics of what might be conflict in space.

Moreover, there is a very small possibility (and it is highly remote) that some capabilities be put in space that can target objects in the atmosphere or on the surface of the Earth. These weapon systems would represent a threat from space systems.

As unlikely as this possibility might be, it is sufficiently real for some states who see counterspace weapons as possible insurance against attempts at ‘dominance’ in outer space.

Daniel A. Porras

The Secure World Foundation (SWF) — a think-tank based in Washington, DC — maintains a global counterspace capabilities assessment. This open-source document uses publicly available information to show which countries are developing what capabilities.

The principal actors pursuing such capabilities are the US, Russia, China and India. While the assessment includes a few other outliers that might have the building blocks for counterspace capabilities (i.e. Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea), recent events indicate that there are more countries now actively seeking ‘weapons in space’, including France and Japan.

There are four main types of counterspace capabilities. The first is ‘kinetic’, namely those that use physical force to cause damage to a satellite. This includes anti-satellite missiles (like the one recently used by India) or even co-orbital drones. These drones are highly manoeuvrable craft that can repair, refuel or even remove satellites from orbit. Such tools can be used for beneficial purposes, like debris removal, or possibly to attack satellites.

The second type of counterspace capability is ‘non-kinetic’, which use high-powered energy to cause disruption or damage to satellites. At present, several countries are developing lasers that could be used in this way, including the US, Russia, China and France.

In the 1980s, then-US President Ronald Reagan launched an initiative called Star Wars, which consisted of satellites with missile interceptors that could destroy ICBMs in orbit.

The main problem with kinetic and non-kinetic weapons is that when they damage or destroy a satellite, they also create debris, which does not necessarily come back down to Earth right away. As one expert once told me, it is like having a war in which the bullets never stop flying.

The other two categories of capabilities are less destructive but are much more prevalent. Electronic counterspace capabilities, which includes jamming and spoofing, is easily accessible to many actors, including non-state actors. The same can be said for cyber capabilities, which can be deployed for espionage, surveillance, or even destruction of space systems.

One of the major concerns with these two categories of capabilities is that there is no consensus around when ‘interference’ becomes an attack. This is particularly worrying as NATO just announced plans to declare that an ‘attack’ on a satellite is enough to trigger collective self-defence. There is no indication whether there is consensus among NATO members as to what is considered an attack on a space object, nor whether that same view is shared with any other countries.

Threats ‘from’ space systems

While the counterspace capabilities listed above describe current threats ‘to’ space systems, there is another challenge that features often in space security talks, namely threats ‘from’ space systems.

These are different because rather than targeting space objects, these capabilities would be able to target objects in the atmosphere or on the ground. At present, no country has ever even hinted at plans to deploy such weapons, except the US.

In the 1980s, then-US President Ronald Reagan launched an initiative called Star Wars, which consisted of satellites with missile interceptors that could destroy ICBMs in orbit. This idea has long been refuted as being about as technically or economically feasible as deploying ‘pink dragons’ in space.

Nevertheless, space-based missile interceptors are being discussed by the US once again, albeit at a very superficial level. The concern here is that space-based missile defence is a pretext to deploy missiles that can strike surface targets. And while many experts cite the extreme remoteness of the possibility of such a weapon system ever being deployed, the mere perception of a threat is creating real challenges in multilateral discussions.

Multilateral efforts to mitigate threats

UN member states acknowledged the growing challenges to space security decades ago, yet there is little progress on this issue. States are generally divided into two camps. Some (mostly Western, developed states) are concerned about threats ‘to’ their space systems, and want voluntary measures to provide transparency in space. This includes measures like launch notifications, sharing orbital data and publishing national space policies.

Others (led by Russia and China but also including most of the rest of the world), are not opposed to voluntary measures but would prefer to see a treaty, which is legally binding. These states are also concerned by the possibility (albeit still a remote one) that someone might one day put weapons in space that can threaten people on the ground. For these states, only a legally binding instrument will suffice.

For the moment, there does not seem to be much room for consensus. The two camps in space security discussions continue to hold firm on their positions. One option for moving forward might be to focus on specific issues that affect all, such as the testing of destructive anti-satellite technology that creates debris.

However, more ambitious solutions will likely continue to be out of reach, particularly if space-based missile defence continues to feature in the background of multilateral discussions without being directly addressed.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/big-power-conflicts-increasingly-taking-place-outer-space/feed/0Eritrea Tops Watchlist of World’s Most-Censored Countrieshttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/eritrea-tops-watchlist-worlds-censored-countries/#respondTue, 10 Sep 2019 04:21:05 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163191Eritrea has the world’s highest levels of censorship and the most active government in jailing reporters and stifling newspapers, radio and television, a study by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) watchdog says. The authoritarian Horn of Africa nation, which shuttered all independent media in 2001 and currently has some 16 journalists behind bars, is […]

In Eritrea, many of the journalists who were jailed in the 2001 media crackdown remain behind bars, the Committee to Protect Journalists says.
Courtesy: UN Photo

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Sep 10 2019 (IPS)

Eritrea has the world’s highest levels of censorship and the most active government in jailing reporters and stifling newspapers, radio and television, a study by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) watchdog says.

The authoritarian Horn of Africa nation, which shuttered all independent media in 2001 and currently has some 16 journalists behind bars, is followed by North Korea and Turkmenistan as the world’s worst places to work as a reporter, the CPJ says.

“The internet was supposed to make censorship obsolete, but that hasn’t happened,” the group’s executive director Joel Simon said in a statement upon releasing the annual report Tuesday.

“Many of the world’s most censored countries are highly wired, with active online communities. These governments combine old-style brutality with new technology, often purchased from Western companies, to stifle dissent and control the media.”

The top 10 watchlist of countries that “flout international freedom of expression norms and guarantees” also includes Saudi Arabia, China, Vietnam, Iran, Equatorial Guinea, Belarus, and the Caribbean island of Cuba.

In Eritrea, many of the journalists who were jailed in the 2001 media crackdown remain behind bars, the CPJ says. The government controls most broadcast outlets; internet connections are hard to find, and foreign radio signals are jammed.

Eritrean law says reporters must promote “national objectives”. Journalists at the country’s state-run media outlets “toe the government’s editorial line for fear of retaliation”, the CPJ said in a nine-page report.

Eritrea’s mission to the United Nations did not answer an interview request from IPS.

In North Korea, the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) runs nearly all the country’s newspapers and broadcasters and sticks to reporting on the latest comments and activities of the reclusive nation’s leader Kim Jong Un.

KCNA has typically been “highly restrictive in its coverage of foreign news”, but that changed in recent months, allowing for reporting on talks between Kim and United States President Donald Trump over Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

Free media also remains largely absent in Turkmenistan, where President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov “enjoys absolute control” over newspapers and broadcasters and wields this power to “promote his cult of personality”, the CPS says.

“A handful of independent Turkmenistan-focused media outlets, such as Khronika Turkmenistana, operate in exile, and anyone who attempts to access the website can be questioned by the authorities,” the report says.

The group also names Saudi Arabia as an offender, spotlighting the murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and government critic Jamal Khashoggi in the country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, in October 2018.

The oil-rich kingdom has witnessed a “sharp deterioration” in media freedoms during the ascendancy of the country’s crown prince and de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman, with new anti-terror and cybercrime laws helping to silence journalists, the CPJ says.

The CPJ report was released only days after the hardline religious militant Taliban group kidnapped six local journalists in Afghanistan last week, as they were travelling to a media workshop in Paktika province.

CPJ researchers noted that journalists struggled with war and instability in such countries as Afghanistan, Syria and Somalia, but said that these issues were “not necessarily attributable solely to government censorship”.

The CPJ media freedom ranking is similar to the list compiled by Reporters Without Borders, another watchdog, which also shames Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan as the world’s worst three countries for independent journalism.

It has been a long, arduous journey – a journey ridden curiously with obstacles and indifference. Two decades have passed by since the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted, by consensus and without reservation, its landmark and norm-setting resolution 53/243 on the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace in 1999.

The current President of the UNGA Ms Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, former Foreign Minister of Ecuador is convening on 13 September the UN High-Level Forum on the Culture of Peace underlining the importance the world body attaches to full and effective implementation of this forward-looking decision.

It was exactly on that date 20 years ago the UN took its most forward-looking stride in ensuring a peaceful planet for all of us since the Charter of the UN in 1945. The UN Charter arose out of the ashes of the Second World War and the UN Declaration and the Programme of Action on Culture of Peace was born in the aftermath of the long-drawn Cold War.

Simply put, the Culture of Peace as a concept means that every one of us needs to consciously make peace and nonviolence a part of our daily existence. We should not isolate peace as something separate or distant. We should know how to relate to one another without being aggressive, without being violent, without being disrespectful, without neglect, without prejudice.

It is important to realize that the absence of peace takes away the opportunities that we need to better ourselves, to prepare ourselves, to empower ourselves to face the challenges of our lives, individually and collectively.

It is also a positive, dynamic participatory process wherein “dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation.”

Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury

Each and every individual is important to the process of transformation required to secure the culture of peace in our world. Each person must be convinced that nonviolent, cooperative action is possible.

If a person succeeds in resolving a conflict in a nonviolent manner at any point in time, then this individual has made a big contribution to the world because this singular act has succeeded in transferring the spirit of non-violence and cooperation to another individual. When repeated, such a spirit will grow exponentially, a practice that will become easier each time the choice is made to face a situation, resolve a conflict non-violently.

On 16 December 1998, at a Security Council meeting on the maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building, I implored that “International peace and security can be best strengthened, not by actions of States alone, but by women and men through the inculcation of the culture of peace and non-violence in every human being and every sphere of activity. The objective of the culture of peace is the empowerment of people.”

As we were coming out of the Cold War, it dawned on us to see how best to take advantage of the end of that era of bitter rivalry and proxy wars and to make peace sustainable.

The Constitution of UNESCO says, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” The concept of the culture of peace started evolving in this spirit, to promote a change of values and behavior.

Soon after I became the Ambassador of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York in 1996, I felt that the culture of peace is a marvelous concept that humanity needs to embrace. I took the lead in proposing in 1997 along with some other Ambassadors in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to include a specific, self-standing agenda item of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on culture of peace.

A new agenda item on the culture of peace was thus agreed upon after considerable negotiating hurdles and the new item was allocated to the plenary of the General Assembly for discussion on an annual basis.

Under this item, UNGA adopted in 1997 a resolution to declare the year 2000 the “International Year for the Culture of Peace”, and in 1998, a resolution to declare the period from 2001 to 2010 the “International Decade for the Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World”.

On 13 September 1999, the United Nations adopted the Declaration and Programme of Action on the Culture of Peace, a monumental document that transcends boundaries, cultures, societies and nations.

It was an honour for me to Chair the nine-month long negotiations that led to the adoption of this historic norm-setting document that is considered as one of the most significant legacies of the United Nations that would endure generations.

I introduced the agreed text of that document (A/RES/53/243) on behalf of all Member States for adoption by the Assembly with its President Didier Opertti of Uruguay chairing the meeting. Through this landmark adoption, the General Assembly laid down humanity’s charter for the new approaching millennium.

To commemorate the 20th anniversary of that momentous action by the most universal global body in a “befitting manner” on 13 September 2019, the on-going 73rd session of the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution 73/126 on 12 December 2018 – with the co-sponsorship of 100 Member States led by Bangladesh – which requested “the President of the General Assembly to give special attention to the appropriate and befitting observance of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration and Programme of Action, which falls on 13 September 2019, by holding the high-level forum on that date, which will be an opportunity for renewing the commitments to strengthen further the global movement for the culture of peace.”

A significant aspect of the essential message as articulated in the UN documents effectively asserts that the “culture of peace is a process of individual, collective and institutional transformation.” Transformation is of the most essential relevance here.

The Programme of Action identifies eight specific areas which encourage actions at all levels – the individual, the family, the community, the nation, the region – and, of course, the global level. Though the Declaration and Programme of Action is an agreement among nations, governments, civil society, media and individuals are all identified in this document as key actors.

It is essential to remember that the culture of peace requires a change of our hearts, change of our mindset. The Culture of Peace can be achieved through simple ways of living, changing of our own behavior, changing how we relate to each other.

How do we build and promote the culture of peace? To turn the culture of peace into a global, universal movement, the most crucial element that is needed is for every one of us to be a true believer in peace and non-violence.

A lot can be achieved in promoting the culture of peace through individual resolve and action. By immersing ourselves in a mode of behaviour that supports and promotes peace, individual efforts will – over time – combine and unite, and peace, security and sustainability will emerge. This is the only way we shall achieve a just and sustainable peace in the world.

All educational institutions need to offer opportunities that prepare the students not only to live fulfilling lives but also to be responsible and productive citizens of the world. For that, educators need to introduce holistic and empowering curricula that cultivate the culture of peace in each and every young mind. Indeed, this should be more appropriately called “education for global citizenship”.

Such learning cannot be achieved without well-intentioned, sustained, and systematic peace education that leads the way to the culture of peace. If our minds could be likened to a computer, then education provides the software with which to “reboot” our priorities and actions away from violence, towards the culture of peace.

For this, I believe that early childhood affords a unique opportunity for us to sow the seeds of transition from the culture of war to the culture of peace. The events that a child experiences early in life, the education that this child receives, and the community activities and socio-cultural mindset in which a child is immersed all contribute to how values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior, and ways of life develop.

We need to use this window of opportunity to instil the rudiments that each individual needs to become agents of peace and non-violence from an early life. I would like to add that young people of today should embrace the culture of peace in a way that can not only shape their lives but can also shape the future of the world.

Let us – yes, all of us — embrace the culture of peace for the good of humanity, for the sustainability of our planet and for making our world a better place to live.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury is Founder of the Global Movement for The Culture of Peace (GMCoP), Permanent Representative of Bangladesh (1996-2001) and Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations (2002-2007)

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/culture-peace-takes-big-stride-un-observes-20th-anniversary-norm-setting-1999-decision/feed/0Are 9-to-5 Jobs Fast Becoming History – Even at the UN?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/#respondFri, 06 Sep 2019 09:18:22 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163127With the rapid leap in digital technology – including increased access to conference calls, e-translations, skype, text messaging and emails—more and more offices in the United States are providing employees with an option to “work from home”. The new concept was frivolously illustrated in a recent cartoon in the Wall Street Journal where the waiter […]

With the rapid leap in digital technology – including increased access to conference calls, e-translations, skype, text messaging and emails—more and more offices in the United States are providing employees with an option to “work from home”.

The new concept was frivolously illustrated in a recent cartoon in the Wall Street Journal where the waiter at a restaurant tells an impatient customer: “Your order will be up in another 45 minutes. Our chef is working from home today.”

The option to work “from another location” – euphemism for working from home—has now spread to the United Nations where it is categorized as “flexible working arrangements”—and described in official circulars either as “staggered working hours”, “compressed work schedule”, “working away from office” or “alternate work place” .

Ian Richards, President of the 60,000-strong Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA), told IPS “home-working can be a great way to find focus and concentration, and avoid the stress of the daily commute. However, experience shows it is best kept within reasonable limits”.

With home-workers fearful of colleagues’ suspicions about their work activities, many have reported it harder to define the start and end of the work day, and separate their private and work lives, he said.

He pointed out that some also feel pressured to work when ill and not make use of sick leave. Lack of interaction at the office means they are less aware of developments at work and more likely to miss out on career advancement, Richards argued.

A recent circular by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, says “the normal working week is subject to exceptions when staff members have been authorized to avail themselves of flexible working arrangements, in accordance with the Secretary-General’s bulletin on flexible working arrangements.” (ST/SGB/2019/3)

The new working arrangements have been prompted primarily by a shortage of work space in the 38-storeyed UN Secretariat building which houses more than 2,000 staffers. ST/IC/2019/15

And more so, by the UN opting out of renewing leases on several rented offices in the neighborhood – due to a growing cash crunch — and thereby forced to re-locate staffers to an already over-crowded Secretariat.

More worryingly, said Richards, the organization has been known to refuse cover for work-related accidents at home. And in times of tight budgets, some managers have argued that those who work extensively from home could be replaced by consultants.

At the same time, supervisors who work from home when not travelling are less able to supervise.

“For this reason, no-one should be pushed to work from home and neither should it function as a pressure valve for the UN’s inability to provide staff with an office and a serene work environment,” he declared.

A UN staffer told IPS that not only are they given the option to work from home— “maximum of three days during the work week” – but also, in some cases, “forcing” staffers to do so, much against their wishes.

Credit: UN

Currently, some UN offices do not have even designated work spaces which are now doled out on a first-come, first-served basis.

“I was working on my desktop computer when I was summoned to an office meeting,” one staffer recounted, “but when I got back an hour later, my computer and my desk had been taken over by another staffer— leaving me stranded momentarily while I had to hunt for another work space.”

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS it will be interesting to find out who precisely prepared that circular; certainly not someone with a credible U.N. record.

There may be financial reasons to save cash on non-renewal of rentals. “Yet it seems like an attempt to display an emerging work practice more attuned to market business than the U.N. spirit. It would erode further the credibility of a dedicated international civil service,” he noted.

“During my tenure, we spent more time at the office than at home. I recall leaving the Secretariat building one evening, after meetings with colleagues, to discover it was 11 p.m. Working at home meant at weekends or during holidays”, he said.

“Once when the Secretary General called while I was in Southampton, continuing the discussion meant returning immediately to the building”, said Sanbar, who worked under five different Secretaries-General during his tenure at the UN.

“Working for the United Nations is not like in a business enterprise or government post. In my belief, that means being seen there — whether at headquarters or in the field.”

A visible presence openly confirmed a central relevance, said Sanbar. Lack of visibility would undercut its perception and play into the determination to erode further the role of its challenged leadership.

Iftikhar Ali, a former UN staffer who worked as Director of UNIC in Tehran (1994 to 2000) and in UNMIK’s Public Information Department in Kosovo (2001 to 2003), told IPS there are both pros and cons in the current flexible working arrangements.

Some American and European companies have been successful in letting their workers operate from their homes, and in most cases, it has improved efficiency.

“But I don’t know how it will work for the UN. After all, the UN is not a company selling goods or services; it is an international organization struggling to achieve higher goals: world peace, security and economic development that would benefit all,” he said.

To promote those ideals, UN staffers must remain dedicated and work together to meet those tasks, however difficult.

In this regard, he noted, UN staffers need to interact with each other more closely and also with representatives of member states.

“Therefore, the best places to develop and remain imbued with the spirit and dedication to serve the cause of peace are the UN offices and complexes where staffers meet each other face-to-face.”

Staying away from the places of work, he pointed out, would gradually erode those linkages and their international outlook, thus weakening the peace movement.

“The atmosphere at home, with lots of distractions, is not very conducive to building global mindset. The UN carries ideas, not cargo,” said Ali.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/9-5-jobs-fast-becoming-history-even-un/feed/0Is America Defeated in Afghanistan?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=america-defeated-afghanistan
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 15:45:49 +0000Saber Azamhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163123Saber Azam is a former official of the United Nations and author of the recently-released book, “SORAYA: The Other Princess”, a historical fiction that overflies the recent seven decades of Afghan history.

Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil, the United States and their allies went to Afghanistan to “smoke out” Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. The most fundamental primary mistake was to let all terrorists flee to Pakistan instead of sealing the border and capturing their main figures.

Furthermore, the foundation of the new political make-up of the country was built with “wrong stones”. The power-sharing government agreed upon in Bonn on 5 December 2001 under the auspices of the United Nations with strong backing of the United States did not consider historic hurdles of the past and lacked vision for the future.

Whoever the United States liked was given parts and parcels of the power. Deployment of troops and erection of multiple military bases in major corners and cities of the country were impressive. The peoples of Afghanistan, nevertheless hoped earnestly for a better future, embraced the presence of foreign troops and establishment of the transitional power.

The third significant error consisted of bringing Hamid Karzai, the man of their choice, who had no credibility or required knowledge and experience, to the realm of power. Some years back, the Soviet Union had propelled Babrak Karmal under similar circumstances with devastating effects that ended in their military and political defeat.

Karzai thought Afghanistan was still a feudal country and surrounded himself with kin and “loyalists”. He governed through chieftains, poured money into their pockets and awarded undeserved titles.

The fourth main mistake of the United States was to avoid nation building efforts. Centuries of discrimination against some ethnic groups, the bloody civil war between 1992 and 1996 as well as five years of the horrendous Taliban regime had never allowed the populations of the country to feel as a nation.

Saber Azam

It was a golden opportunity to finally bring positive forces together for the benefit of the country. But, the occasion was horribly missed; George W. Bush made it clear that the International Community had not come to Afghanistan for nation building.

In addition to the aforementioned political and military howlers, the United States made some fundamental cultural mistakes that demonstrated their amateurish knowledge of Afghanistan. Violation of private premises was the most serious offense.

Certain of their military might, foreign troops brook into the houses without notice in “search of terrorists”, ignoring the basic courtesy rule of asking the head of the family for permission, something that they would have been granted with pleasure.

The reaction was instantaneous, summarized in total rejection of the methodology. Lack of respect for women in rural Afghanistan was another unforgiveable mistake. Afghans are definitely poor, but extremely rich in their pride. Search of women by male soldiers and tiding hands with plastic rope before even interrogating an individual should have never happened, had essential briefings been provided to the troops.

The United States and their allies, including the multilateral branch of the International Community, also failed to fulfill the essence of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1378, 1383 and 1386 of the year 2001 and 1390 of 2002. Afghanistan was supposed to be an example of safety, democracy, rule of law and equal opportunity for all citizens. This was short lived.

A government that was composed of corrupt, inept and inefficient individuals was entertained. Abuse of democratic principles, “selection” of parliament chiefs, systematic violation of law by its “guardians”, rampant fraud and embezzlement of public and international aid money by the government wolves as well as their allies and family members, nepotism and tribalism gangrened quickly the apparatus of a state that should have been exemplary.

The International Community on their part opted for the policy of “dumb, deaf and blind”, contributing further to the “endorsement” of venalities. Ethnic biased both at central and provincial levels composed the essence of governmental actions at all layers.

UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. Credit: UN

Ineptness became the trade mark of a team that was totally supported, funded and kept in power by the International Community. Soon, people were frustrated to see billions of US dollars allocated for their welfare and reconstruction of their country wasted, embezzled and misused by the bigwig of the regime and some foreign companies.

Aware of people’s disdain, the Taliban regrouped. Encouraged, trained and armed by Pakistan, they begun to enter Afghanistan to terrorize the population and security forces. Less than a year after they were supposed to be smoked out, the Taliban and their terrorist associates were back in Afghanistan while the leader of Al-Qaeda was left “scot free” in Pakistan!

President Karzai’s election in 2005 did not pose a problem However, his second term “election” that coincided with the last months of Georg Bush’s presidency was marred with massive fraud to the extent that his challenger, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah had to withdraw from the second round, leaving most observers to believe that the United States had obviously taken side in Afghanistan.

The arrival of President Barak Obama into the White House had a positive effect. He effectively put pressure on Karzai to curb corruption and nepotism, oblige government legislative, judiciary and administrative leaders to abide by the rule of law and endeavor to bring Afghan fragmented communities together.

Under such circumstances, the erratic leader of Afghanistan, the man who used to thank the United States and George Bush exaggeratedly in his public appearances, turned into a “patriot” blaming America for his own wrong doings. Nevertheless, the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 in Pakistan provided some basis for optimism about security in the country.

But unhappiness of the population at large and corrupt government officials allowed the Taliban to make further progress, capture districts, hit the hearts of Kabul and other major cities, attack foreign troops and commit mass murders and genocide in the country. The 2014 presidential election was another shameful blunder to democracy and rule of law.

It was marred by scandalous rigging. Ashraf Ghani was propelled to the second round to face Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. After months of delay in announcing the final results, the United States had no other choice but to opt for temporary freeze of the constitutional requirements, a political agreement between the two contenders and formation of a government of national unity. It was a mockery of democratic principles.

Ghani caused further fragmentation of the society, did not curb corruption and nepotism and further exacerbated the population. The “second most intelligent brain” proved to be a mediocre politician and low-level manager who survived by instigating tribalism and giving empty promises to the people.

America’s effort to sign a “peace deal” with the Taliban, one of the most violent terrorist groups signifies their failure in Afghanistan with dramatic consequences on the lives of each one of us. It gives tremendous strength to other such organizations in Asia, Africa and elsewhere to “dream” about their success and will render them more determined and virulent.

This deal will not bring peace and security in Afghanistan, but further fragment the society leading to another prolonged war against terrorism!

Saber Azam is a former official of the United Nations and author of the recently-released book, “SORAYA: The Other Princess”, a historical fiction that overflies the recent seven decades of Afghan history.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/america-defeated-afghanistan/feed/0Exclusive: Winnie Byanyima Speaks about Inequality in Africa and Next Steps at UNAIDShttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 09:34:30 +0000Crystal Ordersonhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163115In this Voices from the Global South podcast, IPS takes you to Cape Town, South Africa where Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's outgoing director talks exclusively to IPS about taking up the post executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and about Oxfam's recent inequality report.

In this Voices from the Global South podcast, IPS takes you to Cape Town, South Africa where Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's outgoing director talks exclusively to IPS about taking up the post executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and about Oxfam's recent inequality report.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/exclusive-winnie-byanyima-speaks-inequality-africa-next-steps-unaids/feed/0UN’s Upcoming Summits May Foreshadow a Revival of Multilateralism or an Obituary for World Orderhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/#respondThu, 05 Sep 2019 09:00:29 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163117The United Nations will be hosting six high level plenary meetings –- unprecedented even by its own standards—during the beginning of the 74th session of the General Assembly in late September. The meetings are being viewed primarily as an attempt at reviving multilateral diplomacy at a time when a rash of hard-right nationalist leaders, including […]

The United Nations will be hosting six high level plenary meetings –- unprecedented even by its own standards—during the beginning of the 74th session of the General Assembly in late September.

The meetings are being viewed primarily as an attempt at reviving multilateral diplomacy at a time when a rash of hard-right nationalist leaders, including US President Donald Trump, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, are either rooting for authoritarianism, abandoning international treaties or undermining multilateralism—not necessarily in that order.

Regrettably, they are joined by a fistful of other demagogic leaders both from the North and the South, including from Russia, Italy, Myanmar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Poland and Turkey – among others.

The United Nations is expecting over 180 world leaders, including foreign ministers and high-ranking government officials, to participate in the six-day mega event.

The multilateral bodies — and international treaties– that have taken a beating include the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Human Rights Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and Paris Climate Change agreement.

As one delegate puts it: “It is either a resurrection of multilateralism or a prelude to an obituary for international order”.

Scheduled to take place September 23-27, the meetings will cover a wide range of political and socio-economic issues on the UN agenda, including climate change, universal health care, sustainable development goals (SDGs), financing for development (FfD), elimination of nuclear weapons and the survival of small island developing states (SIDS) facing extinction from rising sea levels.

Speaking to reporters last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that multilateralism is under attack from many different directions precisely “when we need it most.”

“In different areas and for different reasons, the trust of people in their political establishments, the trust of states among each other, the trust of many people in international organizations has been eroded and … multilateralism has been in the fire,” he complained.

On the upcoming six summits, Guterres warned “the people of the world do not want half measures or empty promises. They are demanding transformative change that is fair and sustainable.”

But will the talk-fest produce concrete results or end up being another political exercise in futility?

In an interview with IPS, Jayantha Dhanapala, a former Sri Lankan Ambassador and UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said: “As we survey the graveyard of multilateral security, environmental and economic agreements underpinning the mutually beneficial liberal order, fires burn 20% of the lungs of the world in the Amazon and even the Arctic has its tundra burning.”

“And the numbers of refugees fleeing violence and persecution are the highest in recorded history.”

With the unrivalled super-power under the quixotic leadership of Donald Trump, even developing countries like the Philippines, Brazil and others have abandoned global norms, Dhanapala told IPS.

“A rule based international order is collapsing before our eyes and Britain is on the brink of a messy Brexit while trade wars ruin Sino-US trade and drive the world towards a ruinous recession and the end of sustainable development.”

Martin S. Edwards, Associate Professor and Chair, School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University told IPS: “I think you’re right that the depth and breadth of the work that the UN is launching is more than just symbolic.”

With Bolsonaro set to address the General Assembly right before President Trump (on September 24), their comments will mirror each other, and will be in stark contrast to many of the other delegates, he added.

But the important thing, he pointed out, is that there’s needed substance here.

“The US might well sit out the Climate Action Summit, and that’s fine. The work of the UN and the member countries will go on without it”.

As for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), he said, this is a signature UN initiative that needs more attention and focus.

“The world is not on track to reach many of these goals, and without greater commitment by member governments, they are not likely to be met by 2030. With the US disengaged from many of these discussions, it falls to the Secretary General to recommit leaders to these goals,” Edwards noted.

James Paul, a former executive director of the New York-based Global Policy Forum, told IPS “This is a time of great international uncertainty and instability. What does this mean for the UN as a cluster of high-profile meetings approaches? And what can we expect from these events?”

“My sense is this: nationalistic enthusiasm is now waning at the popular level and posturing leaders are under increasing pressure from below to deliver more than rhetoric. So multilateral diplomacy may be headed for a much-needed revival, with a stronger and more egalitarian agenda coming to the fore.”

“As we have seen at the recent G-7 meeting in Biarritz, leaders are changing course and opting for more cooperation, though still far less than what is required. Above all, the environmental crisis is serving to mobilize public attention and energized youth are insisting that their voices be heard,” said Paul, author of the recently-released book titled “Of Foxes and Chickens: Oligarchy and Global Power in the UN Security Council”.

Greta Thunberg, the dynamic young Swedish activist, he said, will be at the UN climate meeting to dramatize the need for common action and to symbolize the essential role that the UN can play.

Will the leaders act with the seriousness and determination that she demands? It may be, as climate activists rightly say, our last chance. No politician will be excused for inaction in such a dramatic circumstance.

The UN has much to offer at this moment in history, Paul declared.

Greta Thunberg, 16-year-old climate activist from Sweden, sails into New York Harbor flanked by a fleet of 17 sailboats representing each of the Sustainable Development Goals on their sails. She embarked on a trans-Atlantic voyage on 14 August from Plymouth, England to New York City on a solar-powered, zero-emission racing boat, the Malizia II, to attend the UN Climate Action Summit in New York September 23, one of six summit meetings scheduled to take place late September. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

The UN, he argued, has lost its moral influence and not even the upcoming ritualistic General Assembly gathering of heads of state can salvage sensible limits on nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and a new generation of Lethal Autonomous Weapons or robotic weapons while negotiating an end to regional wars.

Next year, in 2020, he said, the UN will observe its 75th anniversary when a new chapter rededicating this unique global body to the ideals of the Charter opens.

“New stringent agreements must be negotiated at the planned gatherings without the charade of rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking Titanic. The UN has the creative minds to do this. Can its member states summon the political will to do so?,” he asked.

Edwards said one other thing that is important to underscore is that these upcoming meetings will be a real credit to Secretary General Guterres’ quiet leadership style.

He has responded to the President’s call for a more minimal multilateralism by going big, but doing so without the bombast that is a hallmark of the Trump administration.

So, this might be an interesting inflection point. The world has proven with climate that it can move forward without the US. The question is how much this happens in other areas moving forward?, he asked.

“I like the attention on Financing for Development (FfD), but that meeting is probably not going to be a successful as developing countries raise the issue of G20 broken promises on foreign aid, and G20 countries are too cheap to admit it,” he declared.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-upcoming-summits-may-foreshadow-revival-multilateralism-obituary-world-order/feed/0Achieving Global Consensus on How to Slow Down Loss of Landhttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 15:58:59 +0000Ranjit Devrajhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163105Expectations are high, perhaps too high, as the 14th Conference of the Parties (CoP 14) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), now into the third day of its two-week session, is being held outside the smog-filled Indian capital of New Delhi. At the inauguration on Monday, India’s minister for environment, forests and […]

India’s minister for environment, forests and climate change, Prakash Javadekar (left), said he would be happy if CoP 14 could achieve consensus on such difficult issues as drought management and land tenure. Courtesy: Ranjit Devraj

By Ranjit DevrajNEW DELHI, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

Expectations are high, perhaps too high, as the 14th Conference of the Parties (CoP 14) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), now into the third day of its two-week session, is being held outside the smog-filled Indian capital of New Delhi.

At the inauguration on Monday, India’s minister for environment, forests and climate change, Prakash Javadekar, soon after ceremonies to mark his taking over as president of the Convention for the next two years, said he would be happy if CoP 14 could achieve consensus on such difficult issues as drought management and land tenure.

Other issues on the agenda of CoP14, themed ‘Restore land, Sustain future’ and located in Greater Noida, in northern Uttar Pradesh state, include negotiations over consumption and production flows that have a bearing on agriculture and urbanisation, restoration of ecosystems and dealing with climate change.

The IPCC report covered interlinked, overlapping issues that are at the core of CoP14 deliberations — climate, change, desertification, and degradation, sustainable land management, food security and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems.

“Sustainable land management can contribute to reducing the negative impacts of multiple stressors, including climate change, on ecosystems and societies,” the IPCC report said. It also identified land use change as the largest driver of biodiversity loss and as having the greatest impact on the environment.

Javadekar said he saw hope in the fact that of the 196 parties to the Convention 122, including some of the most populous like Brazil, China, India, Nigeria, Russia and South Africa have agreed to make the U.N. Sustainable Development Goal of achieving land degradation neutrality (LDN) targets by 2030 as national objectives.

But the difficulty of seeing results on the ground can be gauged from India’s own difficult situation. Nearly 30 percent of India’s 328 million hectares, supporting 1.3 billion people, has become degraded through deforestation, over-cultivation, soil-erosion and wetland depletion, according to a satellite survey conducted in 2016 by the Indian Space Research Organisation.

A study, conducted last year by The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI), an independent think-tank based in New Delhi, estimates India’s losses from land degradation and change in land use to be worth 47 billion dollars in 2014—2015.

The question before CoP14 is how participating countries can slow down loss of land and along with it biodiversity threatening to impact 3.2 billion people across the world. “Three out of every four hectares have been altered from their natural states and the productivity of one every four hectares of land has been declining,” according to UNCCD.

Running in parallel to CoP14 is the 14th session of UNCCD’s committee on science and technology (CST14), a subsidiary body with stated objectives — estimating soil organic carbon lost as a result of land degradation, addressing the ‘land-drought nexus’ through land-based interventions and translating available science into policy options for participating countries.

On Tuesday, as CoP4 launched into substantive business, the participants at the CST and other subsidiary bodies began to voice real apprehensions and demands.

Bhutan representing the Asia Pacific group, highlighted the need for cooperation at all levels to disseminate and translate identified technologies and knowledge into direct benefits for local land users.

Bangladesh pointed out that LDN targets are sometimes linked to transboundary water resources and also called for mobilising additional resources for capacity building.

Colombia, speaking for the Latin America and Caribbean group, appreciated the value of research by the scientific panels, but urged introduction of improved technologies and mitigation strategies to reduce the direct impacts of drought on ecosystems, starting with soil degradation.

Russia, on behalf of Central and Eastern Europe, mooted the establishment of technical centres in the region to support the generation of scientific evidence to prevent and manage droughts, sustainable use of forests and peatlands and monitoring of sand and dust storms.

Civil society organisations, led by the Cape Town-based Environmental Monitoring Group, were also critical of the UNCCD for putting too much emphasis on LDN and demanded optimisation of land use through practical solutions that would ensure that carbon is retained in the soil.

“Retaining carbon in the soil is of particular value to India and its neighbouring countries, which presently have the world’s greatest rainwater runoffs into the sea,” says Himanshu Thakkar, coordinator, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), a New Delhi based NGO, working on the water and environment sectors.

“What South Asian countries need to do urgently is to improve the rainwater harvesting so as to recharge groundwater aquifers and local water bodies in a given catchment so that water is available in the post-monsoon period that increasingly see severe droughts,” Thakkar tells IPS. “This is where governments can be supportive.”

Benefits such as preventing soil degradation and consequent landslides that have become a common feature in South India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

A study published in May said half of the area around 16 of India’s 24 major river basins is facing droughts due to lowered soil moisture levels while at least a third of its 18 river basins has become non-resilient to vegetation droughts.

Responding to the suggestions and demands the Secretariat highlighted recommendations to ensure mainstreaming of LDN targets in national strategies and action programmes, partnerships on science-policy to increase awareness and understanding of LDN and collaborations to assess finance and capacity development needs.

In all, the delegates, who include 90 ministers and more than 7,000 participants drawn from among government officials, civil society and the scientific community from the 197 parties will thrash out 30 decision texts and draw up action plans to strengthen land-use policies and address emerging threats such as droughts, forest fires, dust storms and forced migration.

“The agenda shows that governments have come to CoP14 ready to find solutions to many difficult, knotty and emerging policy issues,” said Thiaw at the inaugural session. The conference ends with the parties signing a ‘New Delhi Declaration’ outlining actions to meet UNCCD goals for 2018-2030.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/achieving-global-consensus-to-slow-down-loss-of-land/feed/0U.N. Criticised for Link-up with Saudi Prince MBShttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 06:47:47 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163090The United Nations is under growing pressure to scrap an event it is co-hosting with the private foundation of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been linked to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. On Tuesday, Sunjeev Bery, director of Freedom Forward, became the latest leader of a campaign group to press […]

Jamal Kahshoggi, a US-based journalist who frequently criticised the Saudi government, was killed while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was collecting papers for his wedding. Courtesy: POMED/CC by 2.0

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

The United Nations is under growing pressure to scrap an event it is co-hosting with the private foundation of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, who has been linked to the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

On Tuesday, Sunjeev Bery, director of Freedom Forward, became the latest leader of a campaign group to press the U.N. to cancel the Sept. 23 event, saying it would help repair bin Salman’s reputation over the Khashoggi murder.

The event, known as the Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum, is a partnership between the U.N.’s youth envoy, Jayathma Wickramanayake, and the Misk Foundation, a culture and education foundation chaired by bin Salman, who is better known as MBS.

“No one — especially not the U.N. — should be partnering with MBS or his personal Misk Foundation,” Bery told IPS.

“Saudi Arabia’s brutal crown prince is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Yemeni children. His thugs imprisoned leading women’s rights activists and murdered Jamal Khashoggi.”

Kenneth Roth, the director of Human Rights Watch, a campaign group, last week accused the world body of helping to “whitewash” MBS’s record; Mandeep Tiwana, from Civicus, a rights group, called the event “disturbing”.

The U.N. youth envoy’s office declined to comment on the row. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the world body had repeatedly issued “very strong statements … calling for accountability” in Khashoggi’s killing.

The Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum will take place in New York only 10 days before the first anniversary of Khashoggi’s murder on Oct. 2 last year, when Saudi government agents killed and dismembered the journalist inside the country’s consulate in Istanbul.

The CIA later determined that MBS had personally ordered the hit. Saudi officials, who initially said Khashoggi had left the consulate alive, now say the journalist was killed in a rogue operation that did not involve MBS.

Saudi Arabia’s mission to the U.N. did not answer requests for comment from IPS.

The four-hour workshop for 300 young people at the New York Public Library will occur on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly and promote green themes, corporate responsibility and other aspects of the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda.

It will feature Alexandra Cousteau, an environmentalist and granddaughter of French explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau; and Bart Houlahan, an entrepreneur who promotes sustainable business practices.

Other speakers include Andrew Corbett, an expert on entrepreneurship at Babson College, Paul Polman, former CEO of consumer goods firm Unilever, and Ann Rosenberg, an author and U.N. technology expert.

Dr. Reem Bint Mansour Al-Saud, a Saudi princess and an envoy to U.N. headquarters in New York, who advocates for empowering women and development in the Gulf kingdom, will also speak at the workshop.

Khashoggi, a United States-based journalist who frequently criticised the Saudi government, was killed while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was collecting papers for his wedding.

U.N. expert Agnes Callamard issued a report in June that described the assassination as a “deliberate, premeditated execution,” and called for MBS and other Saudi officials to be probed.

The Misk-OSGEY Youth Forum comes after years of tensions between the U.N. and Riyadh over the war in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition against the country’s Houthi rebels.

The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and caused led to a major humanitarian crisis.

“The crown prince and his violent government must be held accountable for their human rights crimes,” said Bery, who advocates for the U.S. to cut ties with Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes.

“Instead, misguided U.N. staff are absurdly giving the crown prince a public relations platform as he attempts to wipe away the blood of so many dead Yemeni children.”

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/u-n-criticised-link-saudi-prince-mbs/feed/0They Call it Multistakeholderism. Where Does That Leave the UN?http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/call-multistakeholderism-leave-un/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=call-multistakeholderism-leave-un
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/call-multistakeholderism-leave-un/#respondWed, 04 Sep 2019 06:34:30 +0000Harris Gleckmanhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163092Global governance is slipping away from the United Nations. Whether it is in managing the Internet, where the UN’s governing structure offers only an advisory role for governments; or climate change, where the most exciting actions are now corporate-led partnerships outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; or the Gates Foundation-sponsored Gavi, The Vaccine […]

The United Nations headquarters showcasing the Sustainable Development summit, September 2015. The essayist, an expert in governance and democracy, bemoans the growing participation of multinational corporations in UN system forums. Credit: CIA PAK/UN PHOTO

By Harris GleckmanUNITED NATIONS, Sep 4 2019 (IPS)

Global governance is slipping away from the United Nations.

Whether it is in managing the Internet, where the UN’s governing structure offers only an advisory role for governments; or climate change, where the most exciting actions are now corporate-led partnerships outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; or the Gates Foundation-sponsored Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which is in a tug of war with the World Health Assembly on who sets health policy in developing countries, the institutional basis for global decision-making is changing.

Where nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were once the largest nonstate entities attending UN system meetings, transnational corporations have become the biggest players. They participate in well-attended public-private partnership sessions at the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the Human Rights Council and the High-Level Political Forum, the key body for following up on the Sustainable Development Goals.

The latest institutional foray is a World Economic Forum-UN partnership agreement. Under this arrangement, senior UN leaders are invited at national, regional and international levels to interact with forum members, many of whom are actually causing the global problems that the UN system is tasked to fix, such as climate change.

These developments are part of a new global governance approach, one in which a team of corporate executives, leaders of civil society organizations (CSOs) , officials from governments and the UN system, academics and other players take on the governance of a specific international challenge.

In the economic, social and environmental fields, this governance arrangement is called multistakeholderism, as each new global decision-maker is said to represent a “stakeholder” in an issue. In practice, these governance arrangements can have a role equal to or greater than the one held by the intergovernmental body officially assigned to address a universal problem.

These experiments in a new form of global governance and the 2010 report on the Global Redesign Initiative by the World Economic Forum run counter to efforts to enhance a sense of democracy as part of global decision-making.

Corporate executives — not leaders of small- and medium-size enterprises, nor microenterprises — are central to these groups and public-private partnerships. Yet these bodies have their own internal governance and constituencies; as a result, they redraft global principles that were agreed on by governments to meet their own, often business-focused, concerns.

The selected government officials, those considered sympathetic to the goals of multistakeholders, sit on the board as only one of the decision-makers. At the same time, the other players are elevated to a role in global governance without any democratic basis for their participation.

This dynamic is quite different from the one prevalent during the conferences of the 1990s, when civil society organizations, farm and labor organizations, educators, scientists, women and businesses gathered to provide diversified voices to governments, which alone led international decision-making.

UN public-private partnerships tend to worsen changes in the relationship between the intergovernmental process and UN secretariat staff members, who act as the administrative arm of a UN entity.

Where once the secretary-general and the heads of UN specialized agencies and programs saw themselves — and were seen by UN member governments — as governed by a specific intergovernmental body, now the secretariats act more autonomously. They strike up relationships with multiplayer bodies like the World Economic Forum and corporations without intergovernmental oversight.

A result of the increase in institutional ties between the UN and senior corporate executives is that civil society organizations, educators, scientists, women and other social communities have less ability to influence the behavior of the UN bodies and the intergovernmental process.

The weakening tie is driven both by outside factors and internal realities. The pressures on the UN system are significant. There is the cumulative effect, for example, of more than 30 years of flat or negative regular budget growth of the UN.

As an extension of President Trump’s effort to deconstruct the domestic regulatory state in the United States, his administration is also striving to deconstruct the UN system.

Internally, the secretariats perceive that taking relatively autonomous actions is one way to deliver on their generic assignments and to offset the underfunded regular budget by reaching out to potential corporate donors.

This increased autonomy is often reflected in more willingness to accept invitations to join a multistakeholder group to “represent” the UN and governments or to invite major corporations to join a secretariat-led multiparty group. These new links can allow corporations to assert that they are working with the UN — albeit without intergovernmental oversight.

They can also influence a UN secretariat to frame solutions to global problems in ways that are sensitive to their corporate constituency but not necessarily focused on government expectations or the need for leading the world toward systemic reforms.

Of course, the interests of corporations vary. For some consumer-oriented businesses, their increased role in UN operations is a chance to secure a role in creating a global sustainability market for a specific product or service.

For other multinationals, particularly those affiliated with the World Economic Forum, it is an opportunity, after the shocks of the 2008 financial crisis, to re-legitimate the globalized market in the minds of international and national elites.

It does not need to be so. Steps can be taken by governments to reassert leadership in managing globalization and mitigating global environmental crises. These could include a clear definition of conflict of interests to guide secretariats when they partner with a specific enterprise; an intergovernmental review of multistakeholders’ plans to ensure they follow UN goals; and improving intergovernmental oversight of the entire UN system through regular meetings of the heads of all intergovernmental bodies.

With the advent of many players involved in decision-making and international public-private partnerships, the secretariats are increasingly semiautonomous from their intergovernmental body, reaching out to one constituency, the international business community, thus marginalizing their overall roles with other global constituencies.

These developments undermine a public view that democracy — one country-one vote with all of its exceptions — will be the guiding global governance principles today and in the future.

Scientific expeditions in recent years have revealed that the high seas, 200 nautical miles from coastal shores, harbor an incredible array of species that provide essential services for life on Earth. Credit: The Pew Charitable Trusts

By Thalif DeenUNITED NATIONS, Sep 2 2019 (IPS)

The world’s high seas, which extend beyond 200 nautical miles, are deemed “international waters” to be shared globally– but they remain largely ungoverned.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that the world’s fisheries have continued to decline, with 33 percent of fish stocks “overfished,” resulting in devastating economic consequences for coastal nations and small island developing states (SIDS).

Still, a two-week long meeting, described as the third in a series of four substantive sessions of an intergovernmental conference of 190 member states, concluded August 30, without “a serious commitment” to a longstanding proposed high seas treaty.

A final negotiating session is scheduled to take place in the first half of 2020.

Asked about the roadblocks during recent negotiations, Liz Karan, Project Director for Protecting Ocean Life on the High Seas at Pew Charitable Trusts, told IPS: “The challenging issues in the negotiations have not changed.”

She said countries still need to find solutions for sharing benefits derived from marine genetic resources, and how a new treaty body will coordinate with existing regional fisheries management organizations, and sectoral organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

The current draft treaty text, she pointed out, still retains the ambitious options to create a comprehensive Marine Protected Area (MPA) network aimed at preserving high seas marine life.

Credit: FAO

Dr. Sandra Schoettner of Greenpeace’s Protect the Oceans campaign, said: “It is very disappointing to see that the pace and ambition in this meeting don’t match the level of urgency required to save our oceans and protect our planet against the climate emergency and massive biodiversity loss we are facing.”

She said the lack of political will for a progressive outcome of these negotiations is alarming as some countries clearly still favor exploitation over protection. Keeping things as they are is not going to save our oceans or, ultimately, humankind.

“That’s why it’s so frustrating to see UN members like the European Union proposing insufficient solutions that don’t represent a real change for our oceans,” she noted.

“In addition, we expect more ambition from China, the host of the CBD CoP15, to be at the forefront of biodiversity protection. We also expect a maritime nation like Norway to take leadership in this process and are disappointed to see them push for a treaty that manages our global oceans in the same way which has brought them to the brink of collapse,” Dr Schoettner declared.

According to the High Seas Alliance, the ocean’s key role in mitigating climate change, which includes absorbing 90% of the extra heat and 26% of the excess carbon dioxide created by human sources, has had a devastating effect on the ocean itself.

Managing the multitude of other anthropogenic stressors exerted on it will increase its resilience to climate change and ocean acidification and protect unique marine ecosystems, many of which are still unexplored and undiscovered. Because these are international waters, the conservation measures needed can only be put into place via a global treaty, the Alliance said.

Credit: Greenpeace

Peggy Kalas, coordinator of High Seas Alliance told IPS each of the primary elements has difficult issues but, likely, the Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) discussion and questions surrounding access and benefit sharing are one of the most difficult.

Asked if the proposed treaty will ensure a comprehensive MPA network to protect the rich biodiversity in the world’s oceans, she said: “Certainly, one of our key ambitions for this agreement, is to provide a framework for the establishment of well-managed and representative network of MPAs.”

On small island developing states (SIDS), most of whom are threatened by sea-level rise triggered by climate change, Kalas said: “A global approach and decision-making body will help smaller states with less capacity, if acting alone, to protect areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ).”

She said the proposed moratorium on deep sea mining is a separate process than the discussion taking place with respect to deep seabed mining (DSM). That discussion will continue within the confines of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).

Dr Palitha Kohona, who co-chaired (along with Dr Elizabeth Linzaard of the Netherlands) the UN Adhoc Group on Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, told IPS that during past negotiations in that Group, a historic compromise was struck between the EU and the Group of 77 (G77) developing nations plus China.

Both groups agreed to support the EU’s pursuit of marine protected areas (MPA) while the G77 demand for benefit-sharing– relating to products developed by industry using marine genetic resources beyond national jurisdiction, mainly by the pharmaceutical industry– would be accommodated by the EU.

While this combination of forces between the G77 and the EU enabled the Working Group to finalise its recommendations by consensus, a group of countries whose common motive remained obscure, continued to express reservations, said Dr Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section.

Nevertheless, these states, which included Norway, Russia, the US and South Korea, did not block consensus during negotiations back in February 2015.

He said the concerns of developing countries need as much attention as the call of the EU for MPAs, if the proposed Global Oceans Treaty is to be successfully finalized. But much work will need to be done inter-sessionally.

Admittedly, while the global oceans are under enormous stress with dead areas continuing to expand, and need urgent attention, the call of the developing world not to be excluded from the next development in industry, the revolution of the pharmaceutical industry based on marine genetic resources, must not be ignored.

“Precedents and compromises from within the Law of the Sea framework will need further exploration,” he declared.

Dr Schoettner of Greenpeace said the stakes are even higher now for the final stage of the negotiations.

In 2020, world leaders need to deliver a Global Ocean Treaty that allows the creation of fully protected ocean sanctuaries in international waters.

In order to seize this historic opportunity to safeguard our oceans for future generations, Greenpeace urges heads of states and ministers to commit to a strong Global Ocean Treaty – so that delegates in the negotiating room have a clear mandate to advocate progress instead of just managing defeat, she noted.

“The solution is right in front of us, now all we are missing is the political will to give a chance to our oceans and to the people who rely on it to survive.”
The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/09/uns-high-seas-treaty-heading-towards-troubled-waters/feed/0UNICEF’s Goodwill Envoy a Messenger of ill-Will, Complain Criticshttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/unicefs-goodwill-envoy-messenger-ill-will-complain-critics/#respondThu, 29 Aug 2019 09:36:18 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=163032When two-time Wimbledon tennis champion Boris Becker, a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, refused to make a commitment not to play in South Africa, a country blacklisted for its apartheid policies, the UN children’s agency stripped him of the prestigious title, back in October 1987. “I will be 20 years old this year and I am a […]

UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Priyanka Chopra holds 5 year old Suleiman during a visit to his home in Amman, Jordan on 10 September 2017. Credit: UNICEF/UN0120373/Rich

By Thalif DeenUNITED NATIONS, Aug 29 2019 (IPS)

When two-time Wimbledon tennis champion Boris Becker, a UNICEF goodwill ambassador, refused to make a commitment not to play in South Africa, a country blacklisted for its apartheid policies, the UN children’s agency stripped him of the prestigious title, back in October 1987.

“I will be 20 years old this year and I am a good professional tennis player, but I think that I am too young to enter politics,” Becker said, while the then West German government protested the UNICEF firing, backing one of its own nationals.

And now 32 years later, another UNICEF goodwill ambassador Priyanka Chopra, a movie star and fashion model of Indian origin, is mired in a political controversy over her implicit support for the Indian armed forces poised to go to war with neighboring Pakistan over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

“So, the goodwill ambassador has become a messenger of ill-will,’ Masood Haider, a longstanding UN correspondent for Pakistan’s leading English newspaper “Dawn”, told IPS.

At a press briefing August 22, Haider complained that UNICEF did not respond to a message seeking comments.

“I asked you about this Priyanka Chopra, the [Goodwill Ambassador], and I called UNICEF, and I called the press office… But nobody has responded at all.”

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters: “I can tell you that, for any Goodwill Ambassador, whether it’s Ms. Chopra or anyone else, we expect them to adhere to impartial positions when they speak on behalf of UNICEF or any other organization,” he said.

“When they speak in their personal capacity, they retain the right to speak about issues of interests or concern to them. Their personal views, however, do not reflect those of the agency with which they may be affiliated with,” he added.

According to an October 1987 report in the New York Times, Horst Cerni, a director of special projects for UNICEF, said Becker’s association with UNICEF, which began in April 1986, had been terminated because Becker had failed to say that he would never return to South Africa.

Becker was blacklisted by the UN Center Against Apartheid after he played in South Africa as a member of the West German Federation’s junior team in 1984. He was, however, only 16 years old at the time, traveling with the team and trying to qualify for the main draw of a grand prix event, the Times reported.

Credit: UNICEF/2017/Jordan/Sebastian Rich

UNICEF says its Ambassadors are leaders in the entertainment industry, representing the fields of film, television, music, sports and beyond.

“They demonstrate leadership in their professions and serve as positive role models through their work”.

As the first to instill an Ambassador Programme, with the appointment of celebrated actor Danny Kaye in 1954, UNICEF’s envoys have played a critical role in raising awareness of the needs for children, and have continued to use their talent and fame to fundraise, advocate, and educate on behalf of UNICEF, says the children’s agency.

Together, UNICEF Ambassadors have proven that being a public figure can be a powerful tool in mobilizing the support necessary to improve the lives of children and ensure their basic human rights

Salim Lone, a former Director of the United Nations News and Media Division, told IPS that Chopra, with tens of millions of social media followers, made an alarming comment recently.

“War is not something that I’m really fond of, but I am patriotic,” was how the Bollywood/Hollywood superstar, who was appointed UNICEF goodwill ambassador in 2016, described her views on war amid the rising tensions between India and Pakistan, he pointed out.

“She had a few months earlier tweeted her support for her country’s armed forces as Indian jets bombed an alleged militant camp in Pakistan, risking another war, potentially nuclear this time,” said Lone, a former Spokesman for the head of the UN mission in Iraq.

He said the entire world’s stability is being beset by an escalating degradation of long-held global values, many of which were pioneered and entrenched by the United Nations.

“The organization will undermine its greatest strength, its moral credibility, if it itself succumbs to this rising scourge”

Had UNICEF spoken to Ms. Chopra after her unfortunate February tweet, as it once used to do in such situations, she would not now have gone farther and suggested that patriotism required support for war, argued Lone.

After the outcry against Chopra’s remarks about not “really loving war”, the UN explained that its envoys adhere to UN guidelines whenever they speak on behalf of the organization. However, they are free to express personal opinions on other occasions.

“That is intolerable,” said Lone. “If someone who expresses racist or misogynistic or indeed pro-war sentiments in the name of freedom of personal expression can be kept on as a UN ambassador, then the UN will be seen to be actively contributing to the degradation it was created to end”.

In any event, he said, about three decades ago, another renowned UNICEF ambassador Boris Becker played in a tennis tournament in apartheid South Africa. When he refused to give UNICEF reassurance he wouldn’t do so again, that relationship was terminated, Lone added.

Meanwhile, in a testy exchange of words at a cosmetic industry’s trade show event in California in mid- August, Chopra said; “I have many, many friends from Pakistan, and I am from India, and war is not something that I’m really fond of but I am patriotic.”

“So, I’m sorry if I hurt sentiments to people who do love me and have loved me, but I think that all of us have a sort of middle ground that we all have to walk.”

Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, outside the P-1 area at the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Eastern Kazakhstan, August 2018.

By Daryl G. KimballWASHINGTON DC, Aug 28 2019 (IPS)

Everybody knows that nuclear weapons have been used twice in wartime and with terrible consequences. Often overlooked, however, is the large-scale, postwar use of nuclear weapons:

At least eight countries have conducted 2,056 nuclear test explosions, most of which were far larger than the bombs that leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The United States alone has detonated more than 1,030 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground.

Hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered from radiation-related illnesses directly caused by the fallout from nuclear testing. The global scale of suffering took too long to come to light.

Secrecy ruled over safety from the start, such as 70 years ago, on Aug. 29, 1949, when the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test in eastern Kazakhstan near the secret town of Semipalatinsk-21.

Authorities understood that the test would expose the local population to harmful radioactive fallout, but they pushed ahead in the name of national security, only acknowledging the damage after information leaks in the late-1980s revealed that far more people were exposed to radiation, with more harmful effects, than the Kremlin had previously admitted.

Today, the Kazakh government estimates that Soviet-era testing harmed about 1.5 million people in Kazakhstan alone. A 2008 study by Kazakh and Japanese doctors estimated that the population in areas adjacent to the Semipalatinsk Test Site received an effective dose of 2,000 millisieverts of radiation during the years of testing.

In some hot spots, people were exposed to even higher levels. By comparison, the average American is exposed to about 3 millisieverts of radiation each year. The rate of cancer for people living in eastern Kazakhstan is 25 to 30 percent higher than elsewhere in the country.

By 1989, growing concerns about the health impacts of nuclear testing led ordinary Kazakh citizens to rise up and demand a test moratorium. They formed the Nevada-Semipalatinsk anti-nuclear organization.

On Oct. 5, 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced a one-year nuclear test moratorium, which led a bipartisan U.S. congressional coalition to introduce legislation to match the Soviet test halt. In 1992 the bill became law over the protestations of President George H.W. Bush.

The following year, under pressure from civil society leaders and Congress, President Bill Clinton decided to extend the moratorium and launch talks on the global, verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which were concluded in 1996.

The CTBT has established a powerful taboo against nuclear testing. Global support for the treaty, which now has 184 state signatories, is strong, and the treaty’s International Monitoring System is fully operational and more capable than originally envisioned.

Today, for the first time since 1945, no nuclear-armed state has an active nuclear testing program.

Yet, the door to further nuclear testing remains ajar. Although the treaty has been signed by 184 states, its entry into force is being held up by eight states, most notably the United States, China, and North Korea, which have refused to ratify the pact.

Making matters worse, the Trump administration has accused Russia of cheating on the CTBT without providing evidence, has falsely asserted there is a lack of clarity about what the CTBT prohibits, and has refused to express support for bringing the CTBT into force.

Given their existing nuclear test moratoria and signatures on the treaty, Washington and Beijing already bear most CTBT-related responsibilities. But their failure to ratify has denied them and others the full security benefits of the treaty, including short-notice, on-site inspections to better detect and deter clandestine nuclear testing.

The treaty’s entry into force also would prevent further health injury from nuclear testing and allow responsible states to better address the dangerous legacy of nuclear testing. In Kazakhstan, for example, access to the vast former test site remains restricted. Many areas will remain unusable until and unless the radioactive contamination can be remediated.

In the Marshall Islands, where the United States detonated massive aboveground nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s, several atolls are still heavily contaminated, indigenous populations have been displaced, and some buried radioactive waste could soon leak into the ocean.

The U.S. Congress should act to include the downwinders affected by the first U.S. test in 1945 in the health monitoring program established through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990.

For the safety and security of future generations and out of respect for the people harmed by nuclear testing, our generation must act. It is time to close and lock the door on nuclear testing by pushing the CTBT holdout states to ratify the treaty and address more comprehensively the devasting human and environmental damage of the nuclear weapons era.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/close-door-nuclear-testing/feed/0Sudan Transition an “Opportunity” to End Darfur Crisishttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis/#respondTue, 27 Aug 2019 08:39:50 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162999Sudan’s transition to civilian rule offers a chance to end the ethnic violence that plagues the western province of Darfur and end a peacekeeping mission there, a top United Nations official said Monday. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the U.N. under-secretary-general for peace operations, told the U.N. Security Council that the peacekeeping force in Darfur, known as UNAMID, […]

UNAMID peacekeepers in Dafur could be scaled back from November if the situation on the ground improves. This picture of peacekeepers is dated 2012. Courtesy: Albert González Farran/UNAMID

By James ReinlUNITED NATIONS, Aug 27 2019 (IPS)

Sudan’s transition to civilian rule offers a chance to end the ethnic violence that plagues the western province of Darfur and end a peacekeeping mission there, a top United Nations official said Monday.

Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the U.N. under-secretary-general for peace operations, told the U.N. Security Council that the peacekeeping force in Darfur, known as UNAMID, could be scaled back from November if the situation on the ground improves.

A complex civilian-military transitional government is set to rule Sudan for a little over three years until elections can be held, following a mass protest movement that forced the ouster of longtime authoritarian President Omar al-Bashir in April.

“This is an opportunity to put a definitive end to the conflict in Darfur,” said Lacroix.

“Donor support will be critical more than ever to assist the simultaneous transitions in Darfur and wider Sudan, particularly considering the economic crisis that triggered the political change.”

In June, council members agreed to “pause” the drawdown of UNAMID’s 5,600-strong blue helmet force, which was deployed to Darfur in 2007 amid fighting between rebels and Sudanese government forces.

The new government in Khartoum has pledged to revive peace efforts in Darfur and other hinterlands, though it remains unclear whether the new sovereign council’s civilian or military members will wield more influence.

The political shift in Khartoum has not changed the situation in Darfur, where anti-government rebels clash with the Sudanese armed forces and a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces, Lacroix said via video link.

Sudan’s ambassador to the U.N., Omer Mohamed Ahmed Siddig, urged council members to lift an arms embargo on Darfur and to start withdrawing peacekeepers by an agreed deadline of June 2020.

“Realisation of peace is my government’s priority during the coming six months,” Siddig said in New York.

“We call on the international community to join my government in inducing the revolutionaries who fought for toppling the previous regime to join hands with us to uplift the plight of our people who suffered the consequences of war.”

Darfur is not Sudan’s only flashpoint. On Sunday, the sovereign council formally declared a state of emergency in the Red Sea city of Port Sudan, following clashes between tribesmen there that police say have killed at least 16 people.

Addressing the council, British diplomat Jonathan Allen spoke of “hope and optimism” at the “beginning of a new chapter in Sudan’s history” that could tackle the bitter ethnic splits in a nation of some 40 million people.

“The new government has committed to achieve a fair, comprehensive and sustainable peace in Sudan and prioritise the peace process,” Allen said.

“We call on all sides but in particular the armed movements to engage constructively, immediately and without preconditions in negotiations to finally deliver a peaceful solution to the conflict in Darfur.”

The military overthrew Bashir on Apr. 11 after months of mass demonstrations, but protesters continued taking to the streets — fearing the military could cling to power — and demanded a swift transition to a civilian government.

A power-sharing deal between protest leaders and Sudan’s Transitional Military Council (TMC) was signed earlier this month, ending months of political chaos.

But tensions between the military and civilians are expected to feature prominently in new Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok’s unruly transitional government.

Beyond politics, Sudan has been wracked by flooding across 17 of its 18 states that has claimed the lives of at least 62 people, the government says. Thousands of people have been displaced by the floods, which are worse in areas along the river Nile.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/sudan-transition-opportunity-end-darfur-crisis/feed/0After Two Years of Horrors in Burma, the U.S. Is Still Doing Too Little, Too Latehttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/two-years-horrors-burma-u-s-still-little-late/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=two-years-horrors-burma-u-s-still-little-late
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/two-years-horrors-burma-u-s-still-little-late/#respondMon, 26 Aug 2019 12:55:05 +0000Nadine Maenza and Anurima Bhargavahttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162987Nadine Maenza is vice chair at the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and the founding Executive Director of Patriot Voices.Anurima Bhargava is a USCIRF commissioner, a civil rights lawyer who served in the Justice Department under the Obama Administration, and the president of Anthem of Us.

Monsoon season is currently wreaking havoc on the more than 911,000 Rohingya refugees displaced from their homeland in Burma (Myanmar) to the ramshackle camps of Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

Two years ago, in August 2017, a brutal military crackdown pushed more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities from Burma’s Rakhine State to flee for safety. The Burmese military has shamefully denied and tried to hide its barbarism, which includes arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, displacement, rape, torture and arbitrary killings.

And, Burma’s government has repudiated the international community’s attempts to document the crimes committed under international law, all while denying Rohingya basic rights like freedom of movement, access to health care and basic necessities, and citizenship.

Shockingly, those responsible for these heinous crimes—either by the explicit actions of Burma’s military or the complicit indifference of Burma’s government—have thus far faced no serious consequences. Where is the U.S. government’s admonition and strong policy response?

First, it is imperative that the U.S. government decide whether the atrocities committed against Rohingya Muslims, Christians and others in Burma constitute more than ethnic cleansing.

When the U.S. Department of State last year issued its report documenting atrocities in northern Rakhine State, it created an expectation that a more serious determination—either crimes against humanity or genocide—would be forthcoming.

The label “ethnic cleansing” unequivocally fails to capture the full extent of crimes that religious and ethnic communities in Burma have suffered at the hands of the military.

Second, the U.S. government must sanction Burmese military officials and the companies under the military’s control so that those who perpetrated these atrocities are held accountable for their crimes. The U.S. Department of the Treasury has imposed economic sanctions on five military officials and two military units under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and the State Department placed travel bans on four other senior military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

But banning the ability to travel to the United States is paltry compared to the monstrous acts the military has undertaken against religious and ethnic minorities. Targeted tools like economic sanctions must also be imposed on military officials and other responsible parties.

Thanks to a recent report issued by the United Nations’ Independent International Fact-Finding Mission, the international community now has a comprehensive list of the military’s businesses to consider for sanctions.

The entities on the list—including two major holding companies: Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL) and Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC)—are owned or influenced by Burma’s military and use the ill-gotten gains from their business ventures to commit human rights violations.

There may be legitimate concerns about the impact that sanctions or other bans will have on Burma’s economy and the overall bilateral relationship; for example, some fear that sanctions will push Burma into China’s arms.

These two countries are fair-weather friends: chummy when it’s advantageous and oppositional when it’s not. Sanctions by the United States and others will not change this calculus.

Tragically, Rohingya Muslims are not the only victims. Burma’s military and security forces have used the same playbook of ruthless tactics in Rakhine State as they have been using for decades against ethnic minorities—many of whom are Christians—in Kachin and northern Shan states and elsewhere. For two decades, USCIRF has tracked, monitored and raised these abuses with the U.S. government.

For these and other systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom, we call on the State Department to re-designate Burma as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act.

This designation acknowledges that Burma is not living up to its commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that protects the fundamental right to thought, conscience and religion.

Accountability is paramount, and the U.S. government must lead the way with a strong and substantive response. Yet for Rohingya Muslims and other religious and ethnic minorities, their future also is about justice and the ability to safely and voluntarily return home with dignity.

Rohingya Muslims need to know that they can return—either from refugee camps in Bangladesh or from the internally displaced persons camps in Rakhine State—to their homelands.

Plans by the governments of Bangladesh and Burma to repatriate Rohingya refugees should not move forward until conditions are independently verified as safe and Rohingya are consulted about their return, neither of which has happened. Other religious and ethnic minorities that face ongoing threats from the military and ethnic armed organizations require similar safe returns.

But first, the impunity and cycle of violence in Burma must end, and that starts when the U.S. government—including both the Administration and the U.S. Congress—steps up and leads the way for the international community to take a stand against such horrific human rights abuses.

* This opinion piece was written by the two authors who recently traveled to Burma and spoke with Rohingya Muslims and others.

Nadine Maenza is vice chair at the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) and the founding Executive Director of Patriot Voices.Anurima Bhargava is a USCIRF commissioner, a civil rights lawyer who served in the Justice Department under the Obama Administration, and the president of Anthem of Us.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/two-years-horrors-burma-u-s-still-little-late/feed/0Little Hope of Justice for Rohingya, Two Years after Exodushttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/little-hope-justice-rohingya-two-years-exodus/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=little-hope-justice-rohingya-two-years-exodus
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/little-hope-justice-rohingya-two-years-exodus/#respondFri, 23 Aug 2019 16:29:27 +0000James Reinlhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162949Two years after the start of an exodus of Rohingya civilians from genocide-like attacks in Myanmar, members of the mainly Muslim minority have little hope of securing justice, rights or returning to their homes, according to the United Nations and aid groups. Reports this week from the U.N. and Oxfam, a charity, show that, on […]

Two years after the start of an exodus of Rohingya civilians from genocide-like attacks in Myanmar, members of the mainly Muslim minority have little hope of securing justice, rights or returning to their homes, according to the United Nations and aid groups.

Reports this week from the U.N. and Oxfam, a charity, show that, on the second anniversary of the ethnic violence in Rakhine state, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya remain refugees in neighbouring Bangladesh or are effectively interred in domestic, government-run camps.

“Rohingya people feel as though they are in limbo with no end in sight. They are alive, but merely surviving,” said Elizabeth Hallinan, an Oxfam advocate on Rohingya issues, in a statement marking the beginning of the exodus on Aug. 25, 2017.

More than 730,000 Rohingya civilians fled Myanmar’s Rakhine state into Bangladesh amid a military-led crackdown in August 2017 that the U.N. and Western governments say included mass killings and gang-rapes.

Oxfam says some 500,000 Rohingya remain in Myanmar, including almost 130,000 confined in government-run camps and where red tape often leaves them unable to send children to school or to visit a doctor.

This week, Bangladesh and the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) announced plans to assess whether some 3,450 Rohingya refugees will accept Myanmar’s offer to return home, nearly a year after another major repatriation scheme failed.

Many refugees refuse to go back, fearing more violence, Radhika Coomaraswamy, an expert from the U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, told reporters Thursday, as persecution continues to threaten them in the South Asian nation.

Coomaraswamy described satellite images of what had been Rohingya villages in Rakhine state, where the government’s slash-and-burn approach had seen settlements “bulldozed” until there was “not a tree standing”.

Sending Rohingya refugees back to Myanmar would expose them to “near-apartheid laws”, and a government that must give approval for marriages between Buddhist women and men of other faiths, including Muslims.

“What are we sending them into, unless there’s some kind of promises being made for a pathway to citizenship that will give them rights?” Coomaraswamy asked in a press briefing in New York

“It’s not only the issue of safety, physically, but also the fact that they should not have to live like people are living in” the displacement camps in Sittwe and elsewhere in Rakhine state, she added.

In Coomaraswamy’s report, the panel of independent investigators, set up by the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2017, said the sexual violence committed by Myanmar troops against Rohingya women and girls in 2017 showed a genocidal intent to destroy the group.

“Hundreds of Rohingya women and girls were raped, with 80 percent of the rapes corroborated by the mission being gang rapes. The Tatmadaw (military) was responsible for 82 percent of these gang rapes,” the 61-page document said.

Myanmar’s government has denied entry to the U.N. investigators, who instead visited refugee camps in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand, and spoke with humanitarians, academics and researchers.

Myanmar’s mission to the U.N. did not answer requests for comment from IPS. Myanmar denies widespread wrongdoing and says the military campaign across hundreds of villages in northern Rakhine was in response to attacks by Rohingya militants.

Coomaraswamy called on world leaders and CEO’s to cut business ties with the Tatmadaw’s businesses, and said there was a small window of hope for prosecutions under a U.N. investigation mechanism in Geneva.

The panel has gathered new evidence about alleged perpetrators and added their names to a confidential list to be given to U.N. human rights boss Michelle Bachelet and another U.N. inquiry that is readying cases for possible future trials.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/little-hope-justice-rohingya-two-years-exodus/feed/0G7 Leaders Urged to Promote Gender Empowermenthttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/g7-leaders-urged-promote-gender-empowerment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=g7-leaders-urged-promote-gender-empowerment
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/g7-leaders-urged-promote-gender-empowerment/#respondFri, 23 Aug 2019 06:46:59 +0000Thalif Deenhttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162944As leaders of the seven major industrialised nations (G7) meet in the coastal seatown of Biarritz in the south west of France, one of the world’s leading women’s organisations is calling for the protection and advancement of women worldwide. Katja Iversen, President/CEO of Women Deliver, and a two-time member of both G7 Gender Equality Advisory […]

As leaders of the seven major industrialised nations (G7) meet in the coastal seatown of Biarritz in the south west of France, one of the world’s leading women’s organisations is calling for the protection and advancement of women worldwide.

Katja Iversen, President/CEO of Women Deliver, and a two-time member of both G7 Gender Equality Advisory Councils (GEAC), is delivering a strong, gender-inspired message to the leaders: “Firstly, ditch the gender discriminatory laws you have on your books. Secondly, push progressive ones.”

“Thirdly, invest specifically in implementation of progressive laws, and also invest in women’s and civil society organisations (CSOs) that work every day to drive progress. And lastly, monitor, measure and be ready to be held to your promises.”

The G7 countries, comprising Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the United States, plus the European Union (EU), are holding their 45th annual meeting in France, August 24-26.

Women currently comprise nearly 50 percent of the global population of 7.7 billion people while the G7 accounts for more than 58 percent of the world’snet wealth..

Iversen,whose organisation is described asa leading global advocate for the health, rights and wellbeing of girls and women, has also brought together diverse voices and interests to drive progress for gender equality, with a particular focus on maternal, sexual, and reproductive health and rights.

In an interview with IPS, Iversen said that within the four focus areas, Women Deliver has identified 79 examples of laws and policies that advance gender equality, drawn from different regions of the world.

While this list is not comprehensive, she said, the examples show that progress is possible and is, in fact, happening.

“We call on the G7 and other world leaders to take these as inspiration, and act before they meet again in 2020, both at the G7 but also at the global Generation Equality Summit to be held in Mexico and France respectively.”

In Canada, abortion is allowed by law without specifications on gestational limits, it is available to women of any age, and it is covered by insurance in hospitals.

Colombia has compulsory sex education with curriculum tailored to the students’ age. Paraguay provides contraception free of charge and without an age restriction.

In India, a 2005 law reforms the discriminatory inheritance practices and establishes equality in land inheritance between unmarried girls and unmarried boys.

And in Rwanda, beginning 2010, at least 30% of parliamentary candidates had to be women – and today more than 60% actually are.

IPS:Can you tell us what the Gender Equality Advisory Council is, and what role it plays at the G7?

IVERSEN: The G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council was created by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to promote gender equality as an issue that deserves the attention of the G7, along with economic development, trade, technology and everything else that heads of state work on. This was last year when Canada held the presidency of the G7.

I guess we did a pretty good job since French President Emmanuel Macron right away said that he was going to continue the idea under France’s presidency. He formed his own at the beginning of the year, and I and a couple of others were asked to continue.

Both independent Councils have brought together activists and advocates, Nobel prizewinners, UN, civil society and business leaders, and a diverse group of people with different perspectives and expertise to share—ranging from education, gender-based violence, women’s economic empowerment, women’s health, indigenous rights, youth engagement, technology, climate change, LGBTQI issues, and male engagement.

Trudeau, Macron and others know that leaders must invest in politically and economically in gender equality to create a healthier, wealthier, more productive and more peaceful world. Our role has been to show the G7 leaders what they need to do to drive progress.

What has been exciting and gratifying about these Councils is that it has really changed the conversation on gender equality. I mean, I talk about gender equality all the time, the members of the Council’s talk about it…but not everybody does. But more and more now do, and we see the discussions being much more prominent – and substantial – in governments, businesses, and in society at large.

IPS: You have served on the 2018 inaugural GEAC and now this one. Can you tell us about the experience of working with two different groups?

IVERSEN: I’m so proud of the work of both Councils and the fact that the various issues related to gender equality have been elevated to the global stage in such a big way.

Prime Minister Trudeau really went out on a limb. It seems a little crazy to say that advising G7 leaders on how to bring about gender equality was a radical idea in 2018. And yet it somewhat was.

We got a lot of leeway, so we didn’t just say – these are things that are good for women and these are things that are bad for women. We were able to show how to make gender inequality history, and make the case that gender is cross-cutting and countries must put a gender lens to their priority areas —the economy, the climate, technology, security, health, education, whatever. The prime minister insisted that we be truly independent, and that we were welcome to criticise Canada, where they were not doing well enough.

President Macron formed a bigger council to expand the work, but also to go deeper, and we have come up with specific recommendations to drive gender equality from a legal perspective. What this council is recommending is for governments to ditch discriminatory laws, push for progressive laws in their place, and put these priorities into the national budget.

IPS: How did you establish priorities for the GEAC and what was the process like?

IVERSEN: It has been fascinating. The work takes time and consensus can be hard won but the process is also invigorating, because we all learn from each other, and because the results are a lot more powerful.

That’s exactly what the G7 needed: ideas, energy, and consolidated advice from a wide range of experts with different lived experiences. And done in a kind and collaborative manner. Gender equality is not a war, it is an investment where everybody wins.

In the 2018 Council, we outlined many, if not all, of the cross-cutting issues that need a gender lens in a report to the G7. This year we focus on what kind of legislation we could recommend. We honed in on reforms in four areas: Ending gender-based violence; ensuring that health and education are high quality, inclusive, and equitable; promoting women’s economic empowerment; and ensuring full gender equality in policies and public life.Investment in these areas would move the needle on gender equality.

IPS:What has been the impact of GEAC in 2018 and what do you hope to achieve this year?

IVERSEN : Prime Minister Trudeau’s creation of an independent Gender Equality Advisory Council put the issues of gender equality on par with the other economic and social issues at the 2018 G7. And President Macron saw the impact that elevating gender equality had, and embraced the idea of establishing his own council.

Ideally, the G7 will remain a platform to promote gender equality and all the economic, political, and social benefits that result from it. But we want all governments to join this work. Not just because it’s the right thing to do but because doing so is better for countries politically, economically, and socially.

IPS: Are commitments enough? How do you hold governments accountable for their commitments made at G7 to ensure tangible, sustainable outcomes?

IVERSEN: Words matter. But some words matter a little more in this context and those are the ones that are written into legislation. Promises are important but they are not enough and we know that.

We need action. But experience tells us we also need accountability. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms show what is working and whether promises are kept. It gives governments opportunity to learn and adjust – and it gives civil society advocates arguments and information to hold governments accountable to their promises.

That is exactly why Women Deliver, UN Women, and OECD together with the Council have created a relatively simple – and affordable – accountability framework to accompany the Biarritz Package. Therefore, we’ve strongly encouraged France take the accountability framework and invest in it.

IPS:You mentioned civil society organisations. Can you tell us a bit more on what role civil society organisations can play?

IVERSEN: It is a good question and I will answer it – but then let’s also save some time and take a look to the future.

Civil society plays a crucial role when we talk about gender equality and about instituting legal and profound change. There are women-led organisations that focus on local issues and there are global NGOs that tackle a broad set of problems all over the world. And there’s everything in-between.

Let’s look to Ireland where women-focused organisations led the year-long campaign that finally legalised abortion. Let’s look to Uganda where civil society, not least youth advocates were instrumental in preventing the government from banning sexuality education. Let’s look to the MeToo, Time’s Up and Ni Una Mas movement in South America that is changing perceptions of women and apathy about gender-based violence. That is real fundamental change.

Big change comes when the different sectors band together – when government, private sector, the judiciary, civil society, and even the private sector finds common ground and push together. That is the point we are getting to regarding gender equality and that is why this G7 Summit is important and why the next year will be instrumental.

In addition, programs intended to serve young people are often designed without meaningful youth engagement, and so impact falls short. The ideas and experience of young people must be included in the design and implementation of all policies and programs designed to serve them.

2020 marks the beginning of the UN’s Decade of Progress on the SDGs. It is also the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on gender equality. It’s hard to remember now but that was revolutionary and we are looking for another big push on this road to gender equality – whether in relation to women in leadership and the economy, health, or education. There are big plans for activities in 2020 and Women Deliver is part of that.

The call for a more gender equal world is echoing throughout the world. And the notion that a gender equal world is a healthier, wealthier, more peaceful and a BETTER world is gaining traction. The genie is out of the bottle, and we are not going backwards.

Asia and the Pacific is lauded globally for its rapid economic growth over recent decades and has lifted 1.1 billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990. Nevertheless, the region continues to have the largest number of poor people in the world.

Why is Asia and the Pacific’s economic progress not translating into faster poverty reduction?

The UN’s recently released World Economic Situation and Prospects mid-2019 Report finds that the overall economic growth outlook for the Asia-Pacific region remains strong compared to other developing regions. Nevertheless, the report downgraded the growth projections for 2019 across most developed and developing regions, while warning of significant downside risks to the regional outlook.

The new round of tariff hikes and retaliations could exacerbate the continuing weaknesses in trade volumes and disrupt regional production networks. Meanwhile, elevated household and corporate debt in parts of East Asia are posing risks to financial stability.

Most worryingly, the region remains far from achieving a decent life for all its people. High economic growth has not translated into sufficient reduction in poverty in many countries, and the rising risks to growth over the coming years will only exacerbate the challenge.

The region has an estimated 400 million people living in extreme poverty below the threshold of $1.90 a day. At the higher international poverty line of $3.20 a day, the number of poor rises to 1.2 billion, accounting for more than a quarter of the region’s total population.

Beyond monetary measures, indicators of multidimensional aspects of poverty paint an even bleaker picture. In many parts of the region, most notably in South and South-West Asia, a large share of the population still lacks access to basic infrastructure and services.

As poor households are constrained in their ability to receive nutrition, schooling and healthcare for their children, this is greatly dampening progress on human capital development and productivity growth, both of which are critical imperatives for sustainable development.

Credit: United Nations

Managing rapid urbanisation is also necessary to tackle the challenge of growing urban poverty in many Asia-Pacific economies. More than half of the region’s population now live in urban areas – and this share is expected to rise to two-thirds by 2050.

Keeping in view the ambitions of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, how do we leave no one behind in the Asia-Pacific region?

ESCAP’s recently published Asia and the Pacific SDG Progress Report 2019 stressed that economic growth alone is not sufficient for poverty reduction. What matters is the types of investment by governments.

Countries that have driven poverty reduction trends have focused their investments on people, importantly through the provision of health, education and social protection. Good examples in the region include Timor-Leste, Mongolia, Viet Nam, Papua New Guinea and Bhutan.

How much would all these investments cost? ESCAP’s most recent Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific provides comprehensive estimates of investments required to achieve the SDGs in the region.

The report focused on two aspects of investments in people: providing basic human rights (no poverty and zero hunger – SDGs 1 and 2) and building human capabilities (health and education for all – SDGs 3 and 4).

To eliminate poverty, policy interventions include cash transfers based on national poverty lines and establishing a social protection floor. Interventions for hunger include nutrition-specific investments and rural investments.

To build human capacities, the estimates include the cost of providing health infrastructure and the cost of universal pre-primary to upper-secondary schooling.

The report finds that the total spending required to achieve these goals is well within reach for many governments. Specifically, the cost of eliminating poverty and hunger and achieving health and education for all amounts to $669 billion per year on average, or less than 2 per cent of average GDP of developing countries in the region between 2016-2030.

For countries that are unable to meet the costs on their own, particularly the least developed countries (LDCs) where the estimated costs reach 12 per cent of GDP, assistance from the international community will be crucial.

What are some of the key policy imperatives? First, the social protection floor should account for the largest share of required investments, as it has an enormous impact through protecting all age groups from poverty.

Second, countries with the highest success rates of reducing poverty through social protection have designed and implemented universal programmes instead of poverty-targeting ones. These countries include Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Nepal and Uzbekistan.

Finally, managing the cross-cutting challenges related to urban poverty will require improved urban planning and better policy coordination between national and local authorities. Two cities exhibiting such approaches, with policy support from ESCAP, are Da Nang in Viet Nam and Naga in the Philippines.

As governments in the region strive towards eliminating poverty by 2030, people-centered investments will be the key towards improving the livelihoods of the marginalised and disadvantaged segments of society.

]]>http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/cant-dynamic-asia-pacific-beat-poverty/feed/0Southern African Development Community Loses Billions in Illicit Outflowshttp://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/southern-african-development-community-loses-billions-illicit-outflows/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=southern-african-development-community-loses-billions-illicit-outflows
http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/08/southern-african-development-community-loses-billions-illicit-outflows/#respondTue, 20 Aug 2019 09:54:02 +0000Lakshi De Vass Gunawardenahttp://www.ipsnews.net/?p=162919The Southern African Development Community (SADC), which comprise 16 member states, loses about 8.8 billion dollars in trade-related illicit outflows and about 21.1 billion dollars in external government debt payments annually, according to a new report released here. Michael Buraimoh, Director, Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA), told IPS there are several reasons for this, including […]

The Southern African Development Community (SADC), which comprise 16 member states, loses about 8.8 billion dollars in trade-related illicit outflows and about 21.1 billion dollars in external government debt payments annually, according to a new report released here.

Michael Buraimoh, Director, Action for Southern Africa (ACTSA), told IPS there are several reasons for this, including the lack of capacity to combat trade mis invoicing and managing debt; nature of politics and institutions in Southern Africa leading to corruption and mismanagement; and the unjust nature of the global economy.

“A broken international economic system is, fundamentally, why trade misinvoicing and unjust debt are depriving SADC governments of massive funds that they could use to realise economic and social rights for the many people living in poverty in the region,” he noted.

Bagree said SADC governments can certainly do more, for example by employing innovative tools to detect potential misinvoicing of trade transactions and organising comprehensive public debt audits.

“But they must also call out powerful international countries for failing to live up to their responsibilities and turning their collective backs on vulnerable people in Southern Africa,” he declared.

The report revealed that in Southern Africa, the youth unemployment rate is 31 percent, 5.4 million people are currently undernourished, at least 617,400 new HIV infections emerge a year, and more than 40 percent of the population in 12 countries lack access to basic sanitation services.

Trade invoicing causes the SADC region to lose at least 8.8 billion dollars a year, and the report estimated that South Africa alone suffers of a loss of at least 5.9 billion dollars per year due to illicit trade flows.

On top of this, the region is bearing even more losses due to debt. The report cites that Angola alone is emptied of 21.1 billion dollars a year as a result of principal and interest payments on debt.

To add to this, the parts of Africa that were devastated by cyclones earlier this year has mass debts to pay back to wealthier countries.

Several institutions have attempted to raise concerns about trade mis invoicing and debts, but progress has been fragmented and slow, and nothing fruitful has emerged.

Asked what role ACTSA will take going forward, Buraimoh said: “We are promoting our report to the media in the U.K. and USA, as well as in Southern Africa and in continental Europe.”

He also revealed they are aiming to meet with and directly influence, the U.K. and U.S. governments, International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and African Union (AU) in relation to the report’s findings and recommendations.

This is expected to lay the basis for future advocacy work on debt and trade-related illicit flows with civil society partners such as Jubilee Debt Campaign, Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development (ZIMCODD), Global Financial Integrity and the Southern Africa Trust.

He added that they aim to add value to the work of these partners and join up regional and global work on these two crucial issues, and that this will be a vital contribution to efforts that considers development from a rights-based perspective and as a concept that relates to issues beyond aid.

“By evaluating success of all the above we can measure progress as relates to the report’s recommendations.

As what role the U.N. should play, Buraimoh said the U.N. Human Rights Council has done some good work on these issues.

“We want to see this continue. The U.N. General Assembly should do more, and some U.N. agencies e.g. Economic Commission for Africa also have engaged, while others can do more.”

He said that all need to work together to ensure International Financial Institutions take more progressive approaches.

“You can really help us by getting the report circulated as widely as possible. The more people are energised about this the better it would be for us to make it an international priority. It is a problem plaguing the entire Global South, not only Southern Africa”, he declared.

Throughout my ten years working in international development and climate policy, I’ve mostly heard colleagues talk about the private sector as if it was this intangible, multifaceted medusa with its own business lingo that is impossible for us policy experts to tackle: “the ‘private sector’ needs a return on investment in order to act on climate” or “the ‘private sector’ does not have the right incentives, but we need ‘private’ capital to solve this crisis”

First, we need to untangle whowe are talking about when we refer to “the private sector”. Are we talking about multinational corporations, wealthy investors, banks, entrepreneurs?

Secondly, unless we approach these actors with the problem, invite them to the discussion table, and hear them out, we will certainly never know the best way to get their interests aligned with climate solutions.

On the other hand, UN organisation and multilateral climate and environment funds interact almost entirely with public institutions and governments. So, when it comes to raising the bar on contributions to the Paris Agreement, climate change adaptation, and accessing climate finance, it seems the ball falls into the governments’ court.

We hear the usual refrain: “Governments need to mainstream climate risk into development policies” or “Governments need to act” or “Heads of State need to meet to raise ambition on NDCs [ Nationally Determined Contributions that countries made to the Paris Agreement]”

But will Government officials shaking hands and signing project proposals magically solve the climate crisis?

Here’s an idea: create a robust business case – whether it is by showing returns on investments or economic losses due to inaction – for profit-seeking actors to financially back up an NDC or National Adaptation Plan (NAP) and activate most of the domestic heavy-lifting that is needed to make these plans a reality.

In Latin America, we see an urgent need for public-private collaboration regarding action on climate change. As far as climate justice goes, the region is on par with most African and Asian peers: their contribution to global warming is less than that of USA and Europe.

However, the mega-biodiverse region remains highly vulnerable to climate change, economic growth is fuelling more carbon emissions, and the need for climate-resilient development is vital.

Despite a growing economy, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Latin America is growing at a slower rate than previously anticipated and well below growth rates of other regions, largely due to tightening of global financial conditions and lower commodity prices.

Low investment in human capital and entrepreneurship means economic inequality and a vulnerable middle class continues to be an issue in the region, a region that is already over-dependent on natural resources.

This socio-economic situation is further exacerbated by climate change related catastrophic events, changes in rainfall patterns and in temperatures. It is projected that a temperature rise of 2.5°C could have a negative impact on the Latin American GDP of 1.5 to 5 percent.

To make matters worse, grant and donor funding from multilateral climate and environmental finance sources are on a downward trajectory in the region, partly due to its “middle income” status; meaning governments are expected to use non-grant instruments to mitigate emissions or adapt to climate change.

The bleak reality is that we can no longer rely on grant-funded projects to cut down emissions or urgently adapt to the already devastating effects of the climate crisis.

But, remember the “private sector”? What is the contribution of wealthy investors, small entrepreneurs, and banks to this puzzle? Should they care? Is the region ready?

The good news in Latin America is that opportunities for private capital investment, which has significantly grown in recent years (for example, venture capital investment jumped from US $500M in 2016 to US $2 Billion in 2018 in the region) is at an all-time high.

There is also a growing sense of business opportunity amongst regional, national and private banks, investors, and entrepreneurs who understand the implications of climate risks in their value chains, operations, and portfolios.

Impact investors are financing reforestation initiatives in Mexico and climate-resilient productive landscapes in Honduras. Banks are developing innovative and flexible financial instruments to support small producers in rural Costa Rica protect their water resources through ecosystem-based adaptation.

Honey and cocoa cooperatives in Guatemala have established climate-resilient value chains by understanding the outstanding risks of climate change to their businesses. UNDP has served as a connector for these partnerships and supported on-the-ground projects which are the vehicles for these fascinating initiatives.

Taking advantage of the NDC and NAP processes, policy makers are approaching businesses, corporations and investors to see how they can contribute to finance the implementation of such plans.

Such is the case of Uruguay, Ecuador and Chile, where UNDP and its partners – including Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) — have been instrumental.

With the Latin America and Caribbean Climate Week (concluding August 23), including the Regional NDC Dialogues organised by UNDP in partnership with UNFCCC, we have another opportunity to welcome the private sector to the discussion table.

Regional and national banks, NGOs, think-tanks and consulting firms will all convene in Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, along with government representatives from across the region, to find ways of working together to fight climate change.